3 ms·

> do not support A few years ago I wrote a Times Higher article called something like "Your future is not supported" about exclusion in schools. "Not supporte

> do not support A few years ago I wrote a Times Higher article called something like "Your future is not supported" about exclusion in schools. "Not supported" is a seemingly innocuous but vicious expression. In almost all cases it has nothing to say about technical interoperability but is an opaque "layer 8" matter of "policy". Hence you are correct identifying it as a "political" problem. I also wrote in Digital Vegan about how digital lifestyle choices, such as prioritising security, or choosing not to support convicted criminal monopolists and gangsters, rank equally with other kinds of identity and observances. We no longer see signs in shops that say "No Blacks, No Irish" But today we have the equivalent with the language of "We do not support..." > This requires a political solution. Mandated service-level interoperability with the total elimination of all barriers to entry is the only way to go. It will happen. But it's a slow process. Obviously Europe is leading the way.

cl3misch 3y ago
> No Blacks, No Irish You can't decide to be black or Irish. You can very well decide to not have a smartphone. Which is a fine decision and I happen to support it. But it is a very different level of discrimination. Depending on your definition it might not be discrimination at all.
- ysavir 3y ago
  A better comparison might be the requirement for brick-and-mortar businesses to accept cash as payment, such as when Sweetgreen went cashless. "Discrimination" might be the wrong word, but I think it's reasonable to mandate businesses not depend on clientele owning specific products that do not relate to the business's core service.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to say that anyone seeking a business license for a physical premise must agree to accept cash, but there are very real business reasons to avoid cash payments. Cash handling can incur significant costs.
    - xboxnolifes 3y ago
      It having a cost is exactly why is needs regulation, otherwise it gets optimized away and companies need to follow to compete on pricing.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        Yes, I just don't think it's really accurate to characterize other payment devices as unrelated to a business's core service. Their core service is providing goods in exchange for payments, and they have legitimate reason to want to avoid cash payments.
  - hhh 3y ago
    Why should it be mandated to accept cash? Why should I have to take your money in some form that is useless to me, and only costs me more to process?
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > Why should it be mandated to accept cash? For the same reason it's mandated to pay taxes and drive on the same side of the road as everybody else. Social cohesion and minimising harm to others is sometimes more important than self advantage.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > You can't decide to be black or Irish. You can very well decide to not have a smartphone. I accept that distinction. But what makes you believe volition plays the role you imply (which I assume is that someone who decides something is somehow on a lower moral footing than someone without choice?) Many people "decide" to join particular religious denominations. Or as we accept more commonly today choose to "identify" as this or that, Do we/should we afford them any less respect? There's a good argument that a sane and reasonable person who decides something, should have more weight attached to that choice than the person for whom it is a matter of accident. For example, murder is a more serious crime than manslaughter, precisely because someone pre-meditated rather than killing by accident. I'm not suggesting you are not dismissing reasonable choice as if it were a lesser thing, just saying it's worth thinking about, because this is not philosophically/ethically clear. edit: There's also another quite strong and very different argument, but it's more complex: There's a line in John Fowles book on the subject of poverty where the protagonist says "Being poor is not something that we are, it's just something that happened to us" Many identity distinctions are not self-identifications but are imposed by another or group upon someone (or group). For example someone who was a proud Yugoslavian woke up one day with a "Bosnian" passport. Discrimination that come from "other-regarding" sources despite our choices, may feel as egregious as those of accident of birth.
  - plasticchris 3y ago
    The Amish are a good example of making an antitechnology stance religious, and they get pretty good accommodation. IANAL but it seems like would be a serious discrimination suit if they were denied service due to a lack of smartphones. This is in the context of the USA, not sure how it would work in Europe.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      This is a good point. Some orthodox Jewish denominations find themselves in the same situation. But I'd actually like to argue against that. I wrote here [0] that we ought not conflate technology morals with religion. It's important to give room to traditional religious beliefs, reasonable lifestyle choices and secular ethical stances. All are important. Saying this as someone who is a practising Christian humanist but was also once an active secular humanist/rationalist-sceptic. For most of us it would be best (in the face of all sorts of unknowns coming down the pipe in the guise of AI etc) to establish the primacy of secular ethical choice around technology. I don't boycott Big-Tech because "Jesus told me to". It's because they're dirty criminals and gangsters who I don't want to give money to. I don't go without a smartphone because "God forbids it". It's because I fundamentally object to being under 24/7 surveillance and having to carry "papers" like in some vicious tinpot dictatorship. These are just common, secular civic and personal moral choices. I am surprised that we aren't doing more to stand up for them, and very surprised that Sweden (and Finland and Estonia) of all places have such a blind-spot around social rights and respect for different opinions and lifestyles. [0] https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religious-choice/ https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religio...
- ta1243 3y ago
  You can't decide to be straight or gay, but you can certainly choose to not enter a gay relationship. Is "no gays" acceptable?
  - Zetobal 3y ago
    Someone has a burned in square on their tv.
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    In the US it should be acceptable.
- LightHugger 3y ago
  To have a smartphone you have to agree to a number of EULAs which may include giving up rights you may otherwise have, agreeing to forced arbitration and other such nonsense. These EULAs are not decided on or designed democratically, but if you must sign one to attend school, has that EULA not become a form of law?
  - dalke 3y ago
    To publish a scientific paper many journals require an ORCID. The web site says "It’s free and only takes a minute, so register now!" which means they don't think people are going to read the ToS. I of course did. It takes more than a minute to read. It's pretty standard, except that it require binding arbitration in the US, with no ability to opt out. I signed it, despite being against binding arbitration, because I had no real choice, and because I felt the underlying intentions of ORCID are decently aligned with what I wanted, unlike the underlying intentions of Google. Plus, I know the editor of the journal I publish in, so if it gets to lawsuit time I think they will make an exception.
- em-bee 3y ago
  unless you are blind or otherwise incapable of not using a smartphone.

cl3misch 3y ago

> No Blacks, No Irish You can't decide to be black or Irish. You can very well decide to not have a smartphone. Which is a fine decision and I happen to support it. But it is a very different level of discrimination. Depending on your definition it might not be discrimination at all.

ysavir 3y ago
A better comparison might be the requirement for brick-and-mortar businesses to accept cash as payment, such as when Sweetgreen went cashless. "Discrimination" might be the wrong word, but I think it's reasonable to mandate businesses not depend on clientele owning specific products that do not relate to the business's core service.
- thfuran 3y ago
  I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to say that anyone seeking a business license for a physical premise must agree to accept cash, but there are very real business reasons to avoid cash payments. Cash handling can incur significant costs.
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    It having a cost is exactly why is needs regulation, otherwise it gets optimized away and companies need to follow to compete on pricing.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Yes, I just don't think it's really accurate to characterize other payment devices as unrelated to a business's core service. Their core service is providing goods in exchange for payments, and they have legitimate reason to want to avoid cash payments.
- hhh 3y ago
  Why should it be mandated to accept cash? Why should I have to take your money in some form that is useless to me, and only costs me more to process?
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    > Why should it be mandated to accept cash? For the same reason it's mandated to pay taxes and drive on the same side of the road as everybody else. Social cohesion and minimising harm to others is sometimes more important than self advantage.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> You can't decide to be black or Irish. You can very well decide to not have a smartphone. I accept that distinction. But what makes you believe volition plays the role you imply (which I assume is that someone who decides something is somehow on a lower moral footing than someone without choice?) Many people "decide" to join particular religious denominations. Or as we accept more commonly today choose to "identify" as this or that, Do we/should we afford them any less respect? There's a good argument that a sane and reasonable person who decides something, should have more weight attached to that choice than the person for whom it is a matter of accident. For example, murder is a more serious crime than manslaughter, precisely because someone pre-meditated rather than killing by accident. I'm not suggesting you are not dismissing reasonable choice as if it were a lesser thing, just saying it's worth thinking about, because this is not philosophically/ethically clear. edit: There's also another quite strong and very different argument, but it's more complex: There's a line in John Fowles book on the subject of poverty where the protagonist says "Being poor is not something that we are, it's just something that happened to us" Many identity distinctions are not self-identifications but are imposed by another or group upon someone (or group). For example someone who was a proud Yugoslavian woke up one day with a "Bosnian" passport. Discrimination that come from "other-regarding" sources despite our choices, may feel as egregious as those of accident of birth.
- plasticchris 3y ago
  The Amish are a good example of making an antitechnology stance religious, and they get pretty good accommodation. IANAL but it seems like would be a serious discrimination suit if they were denied service due to a lack of smartphones. This is in the context of the USA, not sure how it would work in Europe.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    This is a good point. Some orthodox Jewish denominations find themselves in the same situation. But I'd actually like to argue against that. I wrote here [0] that we ought not conflate technology morals with religion. It's important to give room to traditional religious beliefs, reasonable lifestyle choices and secular ethical stances. All are important. Saying this as someone who is a practising Christian humanist but was also once an active secular humanist/rationalist-sceptic. For most of us it would be best (in the face of all sorts of unknowns coming down the pipe in the guise of AI etc) to establish the primacy of secular ethical choice around technology. I don't boycott Big-Tech because "Jesus told me to". It's because they're dirty criminals and gangsters who I don't want to give money to. I don't go without a smartphone because "God forbids it". It's because I fundamentally object to being under 24/7 surveillance and having to carry "papers" like in some vicious tinpot dictatorship. These are just common, secular civic and personal moral choices. I am surprised that we aren't doing more to stand up for them, and very surprised that Sweden (and Finland and Estonia) of all places have such a blind-spot around social rights and respect for different opinions and lifestyles. [0] https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religious-choice/ https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religio...
ta1243 3y ago
You can't decide to be straight or gay, but you can certainly choose to not enter a gay relationship. Is "no gays" acceptable?
- Zetobal 3y ago
  Someone has a burned in square on their tv.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  In the US it should be acceptable.
LightHugger 3y ago
To have a smartphone you have to agree to a number of EULAs which may include giving up rights you may otherwise have, agreeing to forced arbitration and other such nonsense. These EULAs are not decided on or designed democratically, but if you must sign one to attend school, has that EULA not become a form of law?
- dalke 3y ago
  To publish a scientific paper many journals require an ORCID. The web site says "It’s free and only takes a minute, so register now!" which means they don't think people are going to read the ToS. I of course did. It takes more than a minute to read. It's pretty standard, except that it require binding arbitration in the US, with no ability to opt out. I signed it, despite being against binding arbitration, because I had no real choice, and because I felt the underlying intentions of ORCID are decently aligned with what I wanted, unlike the underlying intentions of Google. Plus, I know the editor of the journal I publish in, so if it gets to lawsuit time I think they will make an exception.
em-bee 3y ago
unless you are blind or otherwise incapable of not using a smartphone.